Topic: What do you think about the iraq war (Read 4681 times)

somedude210 · « **on:** September 14, 2007, 01:28:05 PM »

justified or not, what do you think about the war, the new surge or any recent developments.

Kevin · « **Reply #1 on:** September 17, 2007, 10:36:55 AM »

I guess technically it's not even a war. The armed forces of the sovereign state of Iraq gave it up years ago. This is really civilians attacking an occupying force. A bit like the French Resistance, without the sexy chicks and berets. Britain never accepted that Northern Ireland was a war (they did not want to elevate the "enemy" to a status above that of criminals) yet the situation is remarkably similar. But I guess we/you have to call it one to give it a little credability.
And coming up with the word "surge" was a bit of genius. So much less embarrassing than "reinforce" with all its conontations of failure.
I find it hard to decide who's winning or loosing (or what winning or loosing actually means), but if you put a gun to my head, I'd say we're loosing. There is clear daylight between the US and UK now. The UK has definately lost its appetite (and ability) to continue the fight and is desperate for a way out. It is the hottest issue in the US with an election approaching.

BlueMeanie · « **Reply #2 on:** September 17, 2007, 11:00:39 AM »

It's become a 'war' of attrition. Eventually the US will have to give up on a battle they can't win, and maybe accept that it's not in everyone's culture to accept democracy. You'd have thought Vietnam would have taught them something.

Kevin · « **Reply #3 on:** September 17, 2007, 11:15:22 AM »

Yep. I think we need to remember that as British we have to say "us" and not "them".
But then we had Malaya (an "Emergency", not a "War") to prove that an insurgency could be beaten. And I guess that the US can say that in 1941 no one would have anticipated Germany and Japan becoming capatilist democracies and trusted allies under US occupation.
And to be honest I don't think imposition of democracy was ever a US aim in Vietnam. They would have been happy with a right wing military dictatorship if that meant the defeat of the communists.
I love a quote from an Isreali general when asked about the difficulties of defeating a civilian insurgency. "Isn't it like looking for a needle in a haystack?" he was asked.
"Easy" he said. "You just burn down the haystack."

harihead · « **Reply #4 on:** September 17, 2007, 01:46:00 PM »

Our own senators (finally!!!) are starting to bring up the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. This undeclared war (police action?) is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't have oil interests. Someone tried to tell me that we were fighting a righteous action because Saddam gassed the Kurds.

I can tell you, the average American thinks the Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers and a Kurd is something you find in cottage cheese. It's the ill-informed being steered by the self-interested.

There's a new movie out in the regular theatres on this topic, called No End in Sight. My parents saw it yesterday and found it "compelling. Especially moving was the young Marine who did good work in Iraq, worked with local Iraqis, and saw it all fall apart."

Summary:
The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraqs descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insiders tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts.

Klang · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2007, 03:22:30 PM »

It seems that the U.S. is thoroughly invested in maintaining a foothold in the region. I can't see them giving it up, unfortunately, whether Dems or Reps are in power. Sad but...

:-/

harihead · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2007, 06:21:32 PM »

We desperately need a third party in this country--one that represents the PEOPLE.

somedude210 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 17, 2007, 10:21:02 PM »

the president has no intention of pulling us out....the lying bastard, people hail him for pulling out one, ONE military unit that was going to be rotated out anyway. we cannot maintain this. we have our armed forces doing 5 and 6 tours of duty, well beyond the maximum number of tours a unit can do...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the f***ing president

pc31 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 20, 2007, 08:00:40 PM »

a poliitical fund raising travesty......but the terroists probally need to be contained at some point...

Kevin · « **Reply #9 on:** September 21, 2007, 11:15:32 AM »

Quote from: 343

...let the generals do their job, they know how to run the military, thats why they're generals and you're the f***ing president

Doesn't your constitution make your head of state also the commander in chief of the armed forces? Tis a monster of your own creation.
In the UK the prime minister has no legal right to tell the army anything operationally. That is why we were spared the horror of Churchillian tactics in WW11.
Hitler was CinC and HoS, and his inability to seperate the 2 roles cost him dearly.
Stalin soon learnt to bow out and left all military decisions to his generals. And won.

somedude210 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 21, 2007, 03:35:31 PM »

mm, funny that. well remember that when that idea came about, most presidents would have military experience anyway (since i mean, our first president was the general in charge of continental forces during the late stages of the revolution)

Kevin · « **Reply #11 on:** September 21, 2007, 04:14:02 PM »

Actually I think you'll find that heads of state as commander-in-chiefs is common. Queen Elizabeth is ours. (Technicaly the prime minister is just the head of the government appointed by her - hence the modesty of 10 Downing Street and the luxury of Buckingham Palace, and Britains disquiet over Blairs presidential style)
It makes good constitutional sense. It should in theory prevent the military overthrowing the regime, as it is the regime that gives it it's orders. A military operating independantly of the state is a scary thought.

somedude210 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 21, 2007, 04:58:04 PM »

indeed it is. but it is when you cross those lines and make the military political, you start to completely f*ck up the country.

case in point: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/20/countdown-special-comment-the-president-of-hypocrisy/

Klang · « **Reply #13 on:** September 21, 2007, 05:24:05 PM »

There is a good practical reason for the head of state to have control over the military. To react quickly to immediate threats without bogging down in political debate. Defend the country first, then sort out the policy later. Unfortunately, this can be abused by a bad egg in power.

Kevin · « **Reply #14 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:25:41 AM »

Damn, but the "surge" (love that word, just like "collateral damage" ) seems to be working.
BBC had a doco recently, following UK troops in action in Afghanistan. Whenever they stopped on patrol, the Afghan Army soldiers with them with would all sit down and smoke spliffs - even in dodgy combat situations. Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.

BlueMeanie · « **Reply #15 on:** December 12, 2007, 10:55:18 AM »

Quote from: 185

Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.

I wouldn't be surprised. Not much else to do on those long nights in the cave.

Kevin · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2007, 10:53:49 AM »

Controversy was created here when 13 sailors and marines, who surrended to the Iranian navy without firing a shot while on patrol in the gulf, were allowed to sell their stories to the media (they are still serving).
One of the sailors admitted crying himself to sleep after his Iranian captors said he looked like Mr Bean and took his iPod. Waterloo, Balaclava, The Somme...is anyone else embarrased?

alexis · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2007, 06:01:27 PM »

Quote from: 551

Our own senators (finally!!!) are starting to bring up the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. This undeclared war (police action?) is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't have oil interests. Someone tried to tell me that we were fighting a righteous action because Saddam gassed the Kurds. I can tell you, the average American thinks the Iraqis flew the planes into the Twin Towers and a Kurd is something you find in cottage cheese. It's the ill-informed being steered by the self-interested.

There's a new movie out in the regular theatres on this topic, called No End in Sight. My parents saw it yesterday and found it "compelling. Especially moving was the young Marine who did good work in Iraq, worked with local Iraqis, and saw it all fall apart."

Summary:
The first film of its kind to chronicle the reasons behind Iraqs descent into guerilla war, warlord rule, criminality and anarchy, NO END IN SIGHT is a jaw-dropping, insiders tale of wholesale incompetence, recklessness and venality. Based on over 200 hours of footage, the film provides a candid retelling of the events following the fall of Baghdad in 2003 by high ranking officials such as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Ambassador Barbara Bodine (in charge of Baghdad during the spring of 2003), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and General Jay Garner (in charge of occupation of Iraq through May 2003), as well as Iraqi civilians, American soldiers and prominent analysts.

Hi Hari - Admitting a lot of ignorance in the States about the issues in this conflict ... are you exaggerating here, or have you seen a poll that you could reference for us?

alexis · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2007, 06:17:01 PM »

Quote from: 185

Damn, but the "surge" (love that word, just like "collateral damage" ) seems to be working.BBC had a doco recently, following UK troops in action in Afghanistan. Whenever they stopped on patrol, the Afghan Army soldiers with them with would all sit down and smoke spliffs - even in dodgy combat situations. Presuming the Taliban don't touch the stuff it doesn't bode well for the future.

Depends what one mean by "working".

Does the level of violence going down mean the expansion of the war (more accurate description than "surge" I believe) is working? Or is violence going down because there is an ever diminishing number of people left to slaughter by those who decree they are worshipping Islam in not quite the right way?

IMO, the only measure of success is leaving that country in a position to govern itself in a reasonable manner, with the rights of all the people in its borders respected. For that, a working government has to be developed. I don't think it is any more likely that this will take place soon than it was before the expansion.

Even then, I would reserve calling the end result a "success" until a reckoning with the costs of getting there is made.

Kevin · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2007, 07:14:57 PM »

Quote from: 568

Depends what one mean by "working".

I assume the purpose was to reduce the levels of partisan violence. I agree Iraq is no nearer self government.
I'm not convinced the US Iraq to be in a position where the US can leave now, not while there's still Iran and Syria to deal with.

News:

Author Topic: What do you think about the iraq war (Read 4681 times)

BlueMeanie

BlueMeanie